His reasoning is that some women who are raped wore provocative clothing and 'deserve' what happened to them.

I wonder if he would agree that he has made provocative statements and 'deserves' to have his face smashed into the pavement. If a rapist isn't to be held responsible for their own actions, I can't see how anyone could be held responsible for knocking the shiat out of this guy. Kinda surprised no one has tested that out.......

I always liked listening to Brother Jed while holding a "[citation needed]" sign. It gave me something to do in the afternoon in between classes and I got some fresh air.

Brother Jed farkin rocked. Did you ever see his holy roller 70's conversion van? I would cut classes to watch him and "sister cindy" (who was a "disco dancer") when I was in college at UCSB in the late 80's. Took me a while to realize he was for real.

Me- "How does anyone know for certain that God exists?"Head Pastor -"If you pray to God he will make himself known to you"Me - grasps hands and prays "Dear Jesus, please let yourself be known to me for truth is more important than ignorance"The group of roving x-tians look at me with their eyes wide. They were expecting a miracle.Me -shrugs "Nope"

Same type of dirtbags appeared at the ASU campus when I was there. Best part is when someone comes at them with a legitimate counterargument and they just end up ignoring them because they can't handle reality.

Seems to me that one could collect a bunch of people (guys, girls, doesn't matter) to surround him and tell him how incredibly sexy he looks in those tight jeans and T-shirts, and that he must "want it".

Theaetetus:mayIFark: This is one topic that confuses me: I absolutely believe that it is not the woman's fault regardless of how dresses or acts or drinks or whatever.

Here is my question though, does those increase's one chance or not? In a perfect world it would not, but we live in a real world that is not perfect.

Who's fault it is, is after the fact (and we know for sure who's fault it is, just to emphasis, there is no question there). But that will not change the fact about the trouble that one have to go through.

Basically, if you keep the door open and things get stolen, it is still thief's fault, but you could reduce that chance by locking that door. Because, at the end of the day, you are the one who lost items.

Now, I don't know for sure, if any of those behavior actually increases the chance or not. If it does not, the whole argument is invalid.

The argument is invalid anyway: you're analogizing a risky behavior with no benefit for performing and no loss for avoiding, such as "leaving your door unlocked", with a common behavior with benefits that are lost if the behavior is avoided, namely wearing attractive clothing, drinking in public, participating as a full member in society, etc. In other words, even if the behavior increased the chance of being raped,you have to compare the risk to the potential benefit: there is no or only a negligible benefit to leaving your door unlocked, but there is a substantial benefit to public socializing. By leaving out that comparison, the argument is invalid.

Furthermore, it's likely invalid for the reason you suggested too: the majority of rapes are by acquaintances, not strangers. Thus, it is not analogous the random thief burglary.

A better comparison would be car accidents. Driving a car makes you significantly more likely to be in a car accident. But driving a car has substantial benefits, and is pretty much a requirement for most of society.Similarly, consuming alcohol in public does make you more likely to be the victim of a rape (see, e.g. Predator Theory, a study which described interviews with self-identified rapists who discussed how they would intentionally target certain victims because they knew that the police and public would find them less credible as victims). However, consuming alcohol in public has substantial benefits (it's a common behavior that leads to marriage, for example), and is pretty much a requirement for most of society.

Does anyone suggest that people should take precautions and not drive? No.

alizeran:Brother Jed farkin rocked. Did you ever see his holy roller 70's conversion van? I would cut classes to watch him and "sister cindy" (who was a "disco dancer") when I was in college at UCSB in the late 80's. Took me a while to realize he was for real.

*laughs* Nope. Never saw the van.

What amazes me is that they (a) think they're actually "getting through" to people and (b) people actually contribute money to them so they can afford to go around doing stuff year after year.

Theaetetus:mayIFark: The argument is invalid anyway: you're analogizing a risky behavior with no benefit for performing and no loss for avoiding, such as "leaving your door unlocked", with a common behavior with benefits that are lost if the behavior is avoided, namely wearing attractive clothing, drinking in public, participating as a full member in society, etc. In other words, even if the behavior increased the chance of being raped,you have to compare the risk to the potential benefit: there is no or only a negligible benefit to leaving your door unlocked, but there is a substantial benefit to public socializing. By leaving out that comparison, the argument is invalid.

You are right here, and I accept the difference. Did not occur to me that, there could be benefits of dressing that way. However, to me, if I were a girl, the risk would still out-weight the benefit. Binge eating can be a lot of fun (benefit), but you can die from it (risk). To me, I would not binge eat, because the risk out-weights the benefit here. Is it not the case for dressing as well? (again, I could be wrong)

mayIFark:Theaetetus: mayIFark: The argument is invalid anyway: you're analogizing a risky behavior with no benefit for performing and no loss for avoiding, such as "leaving your door unlocked", with a common behavior with benefits that are lost if the behavior is avoided, namely wearing attractive clothing, drinking in public, participating as a full member in society, etc. In other words, even if the behavior increased the chance of being raped,you have to compare the risk to the potential benefit: there is no or only a negligible benefit to leaving your door unlocked, but there is a substantial benefit to public socializing. By leaving out that comparison, the argument is invalid.

You are right here, and I accept the difference. Did not occur to me that, there could be benefits of dressing that way. However, to me, if I were a girl, the risk would still out-weight the benefit. Binge eating can be a lot of fun (benefit), but you can die from it (risk). To me, I would not binge eat, because the risk out-weights the benefit here. Is it not the case for dressing as well? (again, I could be wrong)

Dressing attractively is also one of the primary ways to attract a mate. It's probably pretty tough to date in a burqa.Some might say that that's not a big enough benefit, and that women should choose a lifetime of loneliness and celibacy (or arranged marriages) over the risk of rape. Some might also say purple monkey dishwasher. It's about as equally sane.

I always liked listening to Brother Jed while holding a "[citation needed]" sign. It gave me something to do in the afternoon in between classes and I got some fresh air.

Brother Jed farkin rocked. Did you ever see his holy roller 70's conversion van? I would cut classes to watch him and "sister cindy" (who was a "disco dancer") when I was in college at UCSB in the late 80's. Took me a while to realize he was for real.

No, I didn't see the van. Main reason I even noticed him in the first place is because the undergrads who gathered to mock him kept blocking the sidewalk. They've remodeled the area between the Union and Admin since then.

A better comparison would be car accidents. Driving a car makes you significantly more likely to be in a car accident. But driving a car has substantial benefits, and is pretty much a requirement for most of society.

Driving is essential, but if you say so is short dress up, I won't make sense to me, but that would explain the missing piece in my thought process.

Theaetetus:A better comparison would be car accidents. Driving a car makes you significantly more likely to be in a car accident. But driving a car has substantial benefits, and is pretty much a requirement for most of society.

An even better comparison would be to just simply switch the gender roles in the scenario of rape. If I suddenly woke up tomorrow and were 5 times stronger than I currently am and went out and raped the first man who dressed provocatively (which would include any man at a gym, playing a sport, at the beach or in tight clubbing shirts/pants) would they be considered even remotely responsible for my behaviour? The whole "dressing provocatively" critique is something only applied to women since they are almost always the victims of rape due to biology and sexual dimorphism.

And blah blah blah to the usual Fark contingent who say a man can't be raped. If they imagine being overpowered and forced to do something by the most vile disgusting woman they can imagine, then they'll know that it wouldn't be something that would garner a "niceeeee".

Theaetetus:How many Fark parties have you been to where everyone was sober, Kwame? I'mma go out on a limb and guess zero.

Additional problem detected.

I'm just splitting hairs in your conversation, but the problem is the claim that there are substantial benefits. No doubt, alcohol is a social lubricant, but there are almost no benefits outside of that. Actually there are no benefits outside of that at all.

A better comparison would be car accidents. Driving a car makes you significantly more likely to be in a car accident. But driving a car has substantial benefits, and is pretty much a requirement for most of society.

Driving is essential, but if you say so is short dress up, I won't make sense to me, but that would explain the missing piece in my thought process.

If it is considered essential by most, sure.

Let's flip it around: under your understanding, it adds a significant risk, but (you think) has no benefit. For this to be true, the person doing it would have to be an irrational actor, by definition.

Go to any bar or nightclub and count the ratio of women wearing short skirts to women not wearing short skirts. It's going to be quite high. Accordingly, for your understanding to be true, the vast majority of women have to be irrational actors.Pithy and misogynist jokes aside, Occam's Razor would disagree that that's at all likely: it's more likely that your understanding on this one issue is incorrect than for millions of women to be per se insane.

These preachers were a rarity in my college of 30 years ago, so when The Campus Crusade for Christ invited one a stage was setup next to the student Union building for his show. I and 2 friends went to see what was this big deal truth proclaimed in all of the fliers around campus. There were about 150 students standing with deer in the headlights stare at the jabbering fool. The 3 of us moved to the center front of the crowd and began laughing loudly as if we were watching a comedy act. Preacher man was thrown off of his schtick and the crowd looked away, his spell was broken. He glared at us, we laughed as we waved goodbye and walked away. About 75% of the assembled crowd followed our cue and rejoined their lives of shiat to do besides listening to insane rantings of an attention whore.

miss diminutive:Theaetetus: A better comparison would be car accidents. Driving a car makes you significantly more likely to be in a car accident. But driving a car has substantial benefits, and is pretty much a requirement for most of society.

An even better comparison would be to just simply switch the gender roles in the scenario of rape. If I suddenly woke up tomorrow and were 5 times stronger than I currently am and went out and raped the first man who dressed provocatively (which would include any man at a gym, playing a sport, at the beach or in tight clubbing shirts/pants) would they be considered even remotely responsible for my behaviour? The whole "dressing provocatively" critique is something only applied to women since they are almost always the victims of rape due to biology and sexual dimorphism.

And blah blah blah to the usual Fark contingent who say a man can't be raped. If they imagine being overpowered and forced to do something by the most vile disgusting woman they can imagine, then they'll know that it wouldn't be something that would garner a "niceeeee".

That's not even close to true. A study in the UK showed that 3% of adult males have experienced rape and 5% of females have. When you include victims of childhood abuse the numbers are even.

What's amazing is that the University says this guy's first-amendment rights trump everything else. If he were a stupid, he would be kicked out of school for "creating a hostile learning environment" and as such, he would be banned from campus. Why they can't ban this guy from campus just because he was never a student, I don't know.

Egoy3k:miss diminutive: Theaetetus: A better comparison would be car accidents. Driving a car makes you significantly more likely to be in a car accident. But driving a car has substantial benefits, and is pretty much a requirement for most of society.

An even better comparison would be to just simply switch the gender roles in the scenario of rape. If I suddenly woke up tomorrow and were 5 times stronger than I currently am and went out and raped the first man who dressed provocatively (which would include any man at a gym, playing a sport, at the beach or in tight clubbing shirts/pants) would they be considered even remotely responsible for my behaviour? The whole "dressing provocatively" critique is something only applied to women since they are almost always the victims of rape due to biology and sexual dimorphism.

And blah blah blah to the usual Fark contingent who say a man can't be raped. If they imagine being overpowered and forced to do something by the most vile disgusting woman they can imagine, then they'll know that it wouldn't be something that would garner a "niceeeee".

That's not even close to true. A study in the UK showed that 3% of adult males have experienced rape and 5% of females have. When you include victims of childhood abuse the numbers are even.

And the US Department of Justice said that 9 out of 10 rape victims were female. (according to 2003 data)

For children, 3 out of 4 were girls.

So unless something drastically changed in 10 years then something doesn't add up here.

Diogenes:Same mentality you see in conservative Islam. Men can't keep it under control and in their pants, so the woman must conceal her body.

Sorry, your lack of control is your problem. Not another's

Umm...have you not been paying attention for the last 20-30 years or so? It's not just Islamic societies. Pretty much all of Western Civilization subscribes to the notion that responsibility is to be externalized and your lack of self-control makes you a "victim" of someone or something that needs to be stopped, usually by force of government. Think about how we've addressed a myriad of social issues: obesity ("It's the fast food restaurants' fault!"), smoking ("It's the evil tobacco companies' fault!"), poverty ("It's the greedy 1% rich peoples' fault!"), violence ("It's the NRA's fault!"), etc. The list goes on and on.

Yes, Islamic societies suck with regard to sexuality, but they don't have the market cornered on blaming others. Not by a long shot.

Christian Bale:What's amazing is that the University says this guy's first-amendment rights trump everything else. If he were a stupid, he would be kicked out of school for "creating a hostile learning environment" and as such, he would be banned from campus. Why they can't ban this guy from campus just because he was never a student, I don't know.

Universities usually offer a free speech area for anyone to come and protest, make a statement, etc. All you have to do is submit a request in the manner they have outlined, and you can say anything you want provided it falls within the range of the first amendment. That's what they're protecting.

And public universities are state property, so no one can be banned unless there is a pretty significant reason.

It's totally fine for this guy to express his opinion in a public space with no fear that the university will try to shut him down. It's also totally fine for any group of students that wishes to use the same space at the same time to have a "Me So Horny" dance party.

RminusQ:Here's the thing. If someone were to take a lead pipe and beat the living snot out of this shiatbag, he would most certainly deserve it. And the person who did it would still be charged, convicted, and jailed for the offense. Why should rape be different?

I_Am_Weasel: He does have an exciting Twitter feed.

https://twitter.com/brodeanIV

and a blog

http://deansaxton.wordpress.com/

Fascinating stuff.

And by that I mean brain rattling derp.

As I said in the redlit thread, this word salad "FEMINISTS" image (right before "Virgin Pride" and "I'm a serial rapist" "Will you submit to me?" in the gallery) is truly inspired:[pbs.twimg.com image 600x1064]

I have to congratulate whoever wrote that shirt. To have English as your second language with a bad case of Tourette's thrown in the mix is difficult to overcome--you can almost see a point in that shirt, and I'm sure as soon as he finishes therapy he'll be able to form coherent sentences.

If I cross the street, do I deserve to get run over? If I go skydiving, do I deserve to die after a parachute malfunction? If I drive my car, do I deserve to wreck? If I swim, do I deserve to drown? No to all, right? What a farking idiot. Lets turn the tables on him: he's a man so he deserves to be castrated. He's a christian so he deserves to be killed by extremists. He's white so he deserves to be accosted by minorities. Just because you do something that makes a certain outcome slightly more likely doesn't mean you deserve that outcome. But I hope y'all know that already.